I read it in two sittings.

If you're like me, you buy something with the intention of reading it and then don't. You eventually forget you ever bought the book in the first place. When I found this book, I read it. It was excellently written, although I must say, incredibly boring as well. It may be hard to understand how something can be interesting yet boring, but trust me, it is. Don't buy this unless you're GENUINELY and DEEPLY interested in King Alfred the Great.

love it

very detailed, dry reading
I do not recommend it

A serious Alfred-Head, I even have prints hanging on my study wall. I was therefore concerned when I foresaw how much of this work was devoted to deconstruction of Asser’s Life–and only the last chapter, finally, was entitled “The Genuine Alfred”–that it might turn out to be one of those works of ruthless demolition of other scholars and even of subject-figures by which some try negatively rather than positively to make their reputations. I am relieved that it is not. Smyth assures us that he demolishes The Pseudo-Asser so analytic-rigorously in order to rectify one of historiography’s “most grotesque” misdescriptions affecting our view of a great man–who shines out the brighter for our scholarly housecleaning : a deeply pious man but no ascetic ; a highly trained no less than an energetic intellectual ; a warrior-scholar modest but also realistic and fiercely determined to get the job done. The attitude and judgments of the book are consistently fair and noble, and it cleaves to serious purposes. I, personally, found even the most recondite deconstructive sections interesting in shedding light on how historians do serious critical thinking though I admit I skimmed a bit as I am not wont to do in reading history. ( If Peter Heather is great at critical historiography like this, Smyth is a veritable technician! ) The lengthiness of the deconstructive sections is owing to the deep-rootedness of scholarly weeds, extirpation of which, Smyth ultimately convinces us, is as vital to our garden’s health as the positive cultivation of flowers. I say, Buy this book, and study its con-structive sections very closely since you won’t find Alfred’s specific achievements in sharper focus anywhere. Smyth is especially luminous in helping us understand the intelligence behind Alfred’s military strategies–which needed oppose themselves to the cleverness of the Vikings, who were no mere barbarians but very clever indeed and extremely wicked. Skim the de-constructive middle segment, retaining the gist of it as a glimpse into the Serious Work of historical truth-remaking.

It is very important for anyone wondering whether to read this epic work to know that the book is primarily about Asser's life of King Alfred rather than an introduction to King Alfred per se. That said there are plenty of insights into Alfred the man, but the emphasis here is on how that man differed from the Alfred portrayed by the the pseudo Asser who Smyth convincingly suggests was an 11th century monk from Ramsey Abbey called Byrhtferth.

I am a little disappointed that the reviews of this book include no one who is willing to say Smyth's central thesis is wrong. I know that there are an awful lot of academics out there who feel that way, perhaps Amazon reviews is not a suitable forum for such illustrious denizens of ivory towers? If so it gives scope to semi-educated (at least in terms of Anglo-Saxon history) amateurs such as me to have their say. The expert criticisms seem mostly directed at the finer points of the argument based mainly on linguistic analysis. I notice that these linguistic discussions annoyed some of the other reviewers and certainly went over my head. The parts of Smyth's argument I found compelling were much easier to understand, much more convincing and are little criticised in the academic press. Please read the book in order to get a proper understanding of the case against the pseudo Asser and do not read on if you want to avoid my butchery of what is a complex and sophisticated case.

There is a version of Asser that goes on beyond the life of the historical Asser, no one can deny this must have been written by a pseudo Asser but defenders of the Life of King Alfred claim the rest of the book is authentically 9th century. These loyalists would have us believe that Asser knew Alfred and set aside time to write a Latin history during the lifetime of his hero. However, even they would have to admit that Asser's story is far, far too close to Manuscript A of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle to have been written independently, indeed this fact is used to date MSA to a few years before Asser's death. This means a native Welsh speaker who knew Alfred chose to translate hear say about his hero from Old English into Latin rather than writing his own version of the story based on his memory and presumably conversation with the King?

I have recently finished reading a rendition of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle on kindle, it is extremely interesting but quite heavy going because people die multiple times and battles are fought many times in the same place with the same victims but in different years. This reflects a compilation produced by many hands over many, many years (centuries) with the obvious confusion that results. Notably, Asser (or the pseudo Asser) chooses to believe in some of these multiple entries, for example having Alfred travel not once but twice to Rome. There are independent records of one visit but no independent support for two and frankly in the 9th century this does seem a little unlikely. If it is not true, is it likely that the double entry in the chronicle occurred during Alfred's life? or is it more likely to have occurred much later after the historical Asser had died. Even if it did occur during Asser's life in the chronicle, surely Alfred's friend could have checked with the man himself before committing such an obvious error to paper?

The chronicle is also a little confusing given its attempt to give entries chronologically as if written contemporaneously. This becomes confusing when events are included that seem irrelevant in the absense of hindsight. Hence we are told lots about the childhood of Duke (referred to as Earl) William of Normandy long before he ever invaded England: clearly because these entries were inserted afterwards. Similarly we hear lots about a roving Viking army attacking cities in France long before this same army turned its attention to the British isles. Strangely the pseudo Asser also shows a great interest in the troubles in France even though the Army would only attack England after Asser's death. Asser's Life of Alfred really must have been written much later than the historical life of its supposed author.

What is the consequence of Smyth's thesis assuming it is correct? The book is well worth reading to find out... but it is worth saying that in my opinion Smyth's Alfred is a lot more interesting than Asser's.